Man Acquitted of Charges He Shot Drunk Driver Who Killed His Sons

[Darkwind]

I'm really torn on this one. To Me, what was done to his sons justifies his actions. However, the problem is that he went to go get a gun and then RETURNED to kill him.

I understand grief, but that has a flavor of premediation to it, or at least enough rationality to plan a killing.

It would be one thing if he killed the guy right on the spot. But he didn't and that is where My sense of law and justice are in conflict.

Me, I wouldn't have cared about going to jail, I would have killed the sumbitch. That however, does not make that legal. Only right.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I understand he lost two sons, but they should of apprehended the drunk man and brought him to trial. We can't take justice in our own hands,

We not only can we have to take justice into our own hands. The govt won't do it's job. If this drunk driver had lived and gone to trial he'd have done maybe 6 months in jail.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm really torn on this one. To Me, what was done to his sons justifies his actions. However, the problem is that he went to go get a gun and then RETURNED to kill him.

I understand grief, but that has a flavor of premediation to it, or at least enough rationality to plan a killing.

.

Well of course it was premeditated. That's obvious and nothing wrong with that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Here in Mi they are strick, and if a death is involved its manslaughter. We have lots of uninsured, unlicensed drivers on the roads.

It's manslaughter in most states but the penalties are still very slight. If the father knew the killer of his kids would get 30 years in prison, he'd have likely called the authorities. But he knew little would be done to the monster - at most 6 months.

 

[Swagger]

I applaud what this man did. His sons were killed in front of him by some selfish c*nt who couldn't bothered to arrange alternative means of transport, and in doing so put everyone he drove past at risk. And he killed two boys in front of their father. This man will have to carry that pain with him for the rest of his life, but at least he can look people in the eyes and truthfully inform them that he wasted the bastard who killed his children.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm really torn on this one. To Me, what was done to his sons justifies his actions. However, the problem is that he went to go get a gun and then RETURNED to kill him.

I understand grief, but that has a flavor of premediation to it, or at least enough rationality to plan a killing.

.

Well of course it was premeditated. That's obvious and nothing wrong with that.

Well no. Premeditated makes it wrong. Manslaughter or even Murder in the 2nd degree is usually a crime of passion and opportunity.

If he had killed him with his bare hands or a tire iron, I'd have zero problem with the drunks death or this mans acquittal.

However, he left the scene, went and obtained a gun, and then returned and killed him. Now, as I said. Grief I understand. However, the sharp grief that drives a person a little bit insane because they cannot deal with the enormity of the pain is one thing. That kind of grief, however; cannot be sustained over a period of hours.

The question I have to ask Myself (if I were to try an imagine this happening to one of My sons or grandchildren), would be this. Would I do anything to seek revenge no matter how long it took or what lengths I have to go to for satisfaction?

I'm not sure I am certain of what I would do given that question.

I do know that I would have killed the fuck right on the spot, with My bare hands.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The guy he shot was hispanic of course. Drunk driving is the national sport in latin america.

There was no evidence he shot anyone you retarded puke.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Jury nullification let another vigilante go and i say great. The govt coddles deadly drunk drivers and people are forced to meet out justice themselves.

Texas Man Acquitted of Charges He Shot the Drunk Driver Who Killed His Sons - TIME

aug 27, 2014
David Barajas was acquittedWednesday over charges that he shot and killed a drunk driver who had earlier hit and killed his two sons.

Barajas was on trial for fatally shooting Jose Banda, who drove into Barajas and his 11-and-12-year-old sons while they were pushing a truck that had run out of gas. Barajas survived the incident, but his two young boys were killed. The prosecutors in the case said Barajas went home to get a gun and returned to shoot and kill Banda, the Associated Press reports.

The case was complicated, as there were no witnesses of the shooting, the murder weapon was never recovered, and gun shot residue tests on Barajas came back negative. However, ammunition and a holster for the type of gun that killed Banda were found in Barajas’ home.

The defense, however, argued that there was not enough evidence to tie Barajas to the crime. Barajas may have also had jury sympathy, since he had support from the community in his Houston-area city of Alvin.

The State had no real evidence he did it.

No they had enough evidence to try him, but they choose not to because of the circumstances of the case. Kudos to Texas. That scum bag deserved to die. Anyone with kids would have done the same! Barajas is going to have to life with the pain of seeing his two kids die because of a drunk asshole. He will probably blame himself for letting his car run out of gas!

They had nothing, no physical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence.

It should have never gone to trial.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm really torn on this one. To Me, what was done to his sons justifies his actions. However, the problem is that he went to go get a gun and then RETURNED to kill him.

I understand grief, but that has a flavor of premediation to it, or at least enough rationality to plan a killing.

.

Well of course it was premeditated. That's obvious and nothing wrong with that.

Well no. Premeditated makes it wrong. Manslaughter or even Murder in the 2nd degree is usually a crime of passion and opportunity.

If he had killed him with his bare hands or a tire iron, I'd have zero problem with the drunks death or this mans acquittal.

However, he left the scene, went and obtained a gun, and then returned and killed him. Now, as I said. Grief I understand. However, the sharp grief that drives a person a little bit insane because they cannot deal with the enormity of the pain is one thing. That kind of grief, however; cannot be sustained over a period of hours.

The question I have to ask Myself (if I were to try an imagine this happening to one of My sons or grandchildren), would be this. Would I do anything to seek revenge no matter how long it took or what lengths I have to go to for satisfaction?

I'm not sure I am certain of what I would do given that question.

I do know that I would have killed the fuck right on the spot, with My bare hands.

There is no evidence that the scenario you painted ever happened.

Stick to the facts of the case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm really torn on this one. To Me, what was done to his sons justifies his actions. However, the problem is that he went to go get a gun and then RETURNED to kill him.

I understand grief, but that has a flavor of premediation to it, or at least enough rationality to plan a killing.

.

Well of course it was premeditated. That's obvious and nothing wrong with that.

Well no. Premeditated makes it wrong. Manslaughter or even Murder in the 2nd degree is usually a crime of passion and opportunity.

If he had killed him with his bare hands or a tire iron, I'd have zero problem with the drunks death or this mans acquittal.

However, he left the scene, went and obtained a gun, and then returned and killed him. Now, as I said. Grief I understand. However, the sharp grief that drives a person a little bit insane because they cannot deal with the enormity of the pain is one thing. That kind of grief, however; cannot be sustained over a period of hours.

The question I have to ask Myself (if I were to try an imagine this happening to one of My sons or grandchildren), would be this. Would I do anything to seek revenge no matter how long it took or what lengths I have to go to for satisfaction?

I'm not sure I am certain of what I would do given that question.

I do know that I would have killed the fuck right on the spot, with My bare hands.

There is NO evidence he even owned a firearm much less left the scene and went and got it. Once again there was NO gun powder residue on him AT ALL.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They had nothing, no physical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence.

It should have never gone to trial.

Except everybody knows he did it. You really believe a stranger came along and shot the guy? THINK

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They had nothing, no physical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence.

It should have never gone to trial.

Except everybody knows he did it. You really believe a stranger came along and shot the guy? THINK

You think, he did NOT own a firearm. NO one saw him leave his sons side. NO one saw hm shoot the guy. Several people fled the scene. And he had NO residue on him AT ALL. That is physically impossible if he shot him.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[



Well of course it was premeditated. That's obvious and nothing wrong with that.

Well no. Premeditated makes it wrong. Manslaughter or even Murder in the 2nd degree is usually a crime of passion and opportunity.

Premeditated makes it illegal and likely murder but from a moral standpoint what he did is still not wrong.

BTW - manslaughter is usually a crime of negligence. You know nothing of the law. THINK

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They had nothing, no physical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence.

It should have never gone to trial.

Except everybody knows he did it. You really believe a stranger came along and shot the guy? THINK

You actually don't KNOW anything. You assume to know which makes you look stupid.

There is absolutely nothing tying him to the shooting death. NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, DIDDLY, ZERO, ZIP!!

 

[Desperado]

Without getting into it, lets just say for once the Jury got it fight.

 

[Politico]

How did ShootSpeeders so quickly ruin a thread everyone was going to agree with?

That's what he always does. He starts a thread that does have a valid point. Then he follows it up with a racist rant and ruins it. Matthew and Tank do the same thing.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'd never have convicted him............He lost his family do to a drunk asshole............He'll never be the same again anyway............another poster said he'll blame himself for running out of gas for the rest of his life............I agree.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The guy he shot was hispanic of course. Drunk driving is the national sport in latin america.

Racist fuck. And here I was gonna say something nice about the OP.

Why is it racist instead of ethnicist?

Hispanics are mostly white, so how is it racist for another white to slam on the ethnicities of other whites?

The subject of race is so fucking convoluted it is incredible.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once saw a reenactment of a murder on the tube, but unfortunately I don't recall the outcome for the perp, but I remember thinking at the time I wouldn't have been able to convict the guy if I was on the jury.

It was a small town where everyone knows everyone. Some guy raped and murdered a girl. He was due in the local courthouse for arraignment at a certain time, which everyone knew about including the girl's father. While the court proceedings were taking place he slipped into the courthouse and took up a position in the hallway outside the courtroom, the only route for the killer and the cops to take to get the guy back to jail.

Conveniently there were 2-3 pay phones hanging on the hallway walls - remember those - so the dad faked like he was talking on the phone with his back to the courtroom door so the cop escorting the guy wouldn't recognize him as they approached him. As soon as the two of them passed by him he took a gun out of his pocket, turned, and shot the killer in the head, abruptly putting an end to his upcoming trial.

That man is a good father who obviously loved his daughter.

I hope he got off the charges.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How did ShootSpeeders so quickly ruin a thread everyone was going to agree with?

That's what he always does. He starts a thread that does have a valid point. Then he follows it up with a racist rant and ruins it. Matthew and Tank do the same thing.

The board was warned you about calling conservatives racist. We are opposed to affirmative action and thus are anti-racist. You liberals are racist since you support AA, the govt mandated persecution of white people and the biggest hate crime in america. THINK